Search
Events Calendar
« 
September 2010
 »
SMTWTFS
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930 

Volume 7 - Number 2 | January 12, 2009

Download Print Send a summary of this page to someone via email.

Recent Issues

  EDITOR'S NOTES | Volume 7 - Number 2
Work estimates are just that – estimates. On unit-price work that includes estimates, it pays to include an estimate protection clause in the contract. With it, a contractor is protected from a large profit loss if the amount of estimated work is grossly exaggerated. Likewise, a project owner is protected from a larger-than-expected bill if the estimated work is less than the quantity of work actually performed. In this week’s first case, a contractor bid a job based on project estimates, which were much higher than the actual work performed. A contract rescission dispute ensued and made its way to the North Dakota Supreme Court.

Departing from a general consensus of high court rulings in other states, the West Virginia Supreme Court ruled that an unlicensed contractor may sue a project owner for nonpayment. Though state law forbids unlicensed contractors from working in the state, it does not forbid them from filing claims.

And finally, although drawings may not always be consistent, no one document should carry more weight than another, ruled the ASBCA in a pass-through appeal by paving contractor.
  CONTRACTOR DID NOT RESCIND UNIT-PRICE CONTRACT
A contractor gets less work than it bargained for on a unit-price contract and attempts to rescind the contract. A state high court rejects its argument that it followed protocol for contract rescission.
  UNLICENSED CONTRACTOR ALLOWED TO SUE FOR PAYMENT
A state high court diverges from precedents set in other states and allows a non-licensed contractor to pursue a claim for nonpayment.
  CONTRACT DRAWINGS MUST BE HARMONIZED
All contract drawing documents carry the same weight, rules the ASBCA. When a discrepancy arises among the drawings, no one document should take precedence over the others.